Author: St. Louis de Montfort




I. Man in the Spiritual Context of the Seventeenth Century: 1. A Christology seen from above: God Alone; 2. Fallen man. II. Greatness and Misery of Man: 1. The dignity of man; 2. The paradox of man; 3. Radical dependence; 4. Indigence; 5. Self-realization; 6. Consecration; 7. The tension between the ideal and the real. III. Montfort’s Passion for the Absolute.


We cannot expect a systematic doctrinal teaching on the essence of man from someone who was primarily a missionary and only secondarily an author on spirituality. Correspondingly, in what follows, we can only try to bring out the basic features that Montfort lends to his idea of man. In order to throw light on the background of our subject, we can make two preliminary comments. The first is related to the Christology that helps to determine Montfort’s thinking and his concept of man; the other is related to the general features that seventeenth-century spirituality attributes to man.

1. A Christology seen from above: God Alone

Montfort moves in the sphere of scholastic theology and the classical Christology characteristic of it. We must not forget this, even when considering his treatment of man. Classical Christology starts "above," with God, and moves down to man. Its starting point is not the Jesus of history but the Eternal Son made man. The Incarnation of the Son, the understanding of his person and his mission, derive from the God of the Trinity. Hence the well-known rudiments of scholastic theology: the Trinity, the Creation, the Fall (original sin), the Incarnation of the Word, who is true God and true man and who restores humanity to its original sinless state in order to bring it to eternal life. The initiative belongs to God Alone; man, including even the Second person in his human form, is considered to be receptive. God the Father sends his Son into the world so that he might take on human form and accomplish his task in perfect obedience. The center and the fundamental event with which all the rest begins is the redemptive Incarnation. The Death/Resurrection is left in the background. This divergence between Christology in the narrow sense and soteriology reduces both the understanding of the person of Jesus in his humanity and the extent to which we participate in his destiny, since salvation is only obtained by the death of Jesus and only the soul that finds itself in a state of grace at the moment of death is saved. This view of salvation impoverishes our humanity and devalues history. Consequently, the individual salvation of the soul constitutes almost the entire content of spiritual life.1

The communal aspect of salvation is scarcely considered. Similarly, the Church is not considered to be a community of brothers and sisters but, much more, an alternative society opposed to the world. Montfort’s spirituality cannot be studied outside this Christological model—it is the opposite of the Christology that starts with man and with which we are more familiar. This initial remark helps to set the question in its proper context.

Finally, Montfort’s life coincides with the middle of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, which increasingly attempted to explain the universe by reference to the chain of natural causes and laws that can be expressed in mathematical terms. God has no place in this view of the universe. Theology must increasingly defend itself against the claim that human reason is independent. Montfort, too, entered the polemic against this claim, which has certain consequences for the spiritual life (LEW 84-88; TD 83).

2. Fallen man

Seventeenth-century spirituality, including a certain concept of man, was more or less influenced in its different formulations by Augustinianism. St. Augustine had gained great importance among the champions of the Reformation, and the Council of Trent itself reflected the Augustinian tradition of the Middle Ages in essential respects. The dispute on the relation between nature and grace, particularly on the effects of original sin on human nature, is central. Post-Reformation teaching on the complete ruin of fallen man found new strength in seventeenth-century France in the system of Baius and, through Molinos and Quesnel, in Jansenism. Against such teaching, it was necessary to defend the concept of man’s freedom under grace and the universal scope of God’s will to save. The problem of the relation between human nature and the state of man after the Fall led to extreme responses: the Protestants depreciated human nature, the Pelagians overestimated it.

Both interpretations are important in the domain of spirituality. Both agree in saying that man has lost the divine endowment as a consequence of Adam’s sin. But while the Pelagians maintain that man is restored to his pure nature, capable of natural goodness and possessing a healthy will that can resist evil inclinations and temptations, and even continues to be inclined to love God, the Protestant position maintains that man no longer possesses any soundness in his nature and that he is still inclined towards evil. This second opinion was upheld by Augustinianism and Jansenism, while the first was held by Francis de Sales and the Jesuits.2

Montfort was in touch with both these tendencies. He came across the more optimistic view through his Jesuit masters of the Collège de Rennes.3 There he was taught the necessity of separation from the world and a negative view of nature, since love of God and love of the world are irreconcilably opposed. Love of God renders renunciation, poverty, love of suffering, penitence, and mortification possible and indispensable.

Still more important was Montfort’s acquaintance with the Lettres spirituelles (Spiritual Letters) of the Jesuit mystic J.-J. Surin, of the school of Lallemant.4 Here Montfort came into contact with the idea of "pure love," which must be obtained by perfect self-negation, which consists in dying to everything and to oneself. This ideal and the experience of the infinite greatness of God, before Whom all creatures are reduced to nothing, led to a depreciation of the creature but, at the same time, allowed the development of a rich mysticism in the France of the first half of the seventeenth century.

As for Augustinianism, Montfort became acquainted with it through the spirituality of the French school and the Oratorians.5 In fact, they did not profess the opinion that human nature is completely ruined by sin; they entertained, however, a certain disdain for fallen man, and this disdain appeared in different degrees in Baius, Jansen, Molinos, and Quesnel. Human love, the enjoyment of creation, the pursuit of happiness, the whole of human action is seen as bearing the stamp of sin.

This deeply theocentric doctrine emphasizes the indescribable greatness of God in contrast to the absolute nothingness of man, who cannot turn directly to God and must consequently incorporate himself in the Son made man and assimilate himself to Christ in all his "states." Bérulle’s representation of man’s nothingness had an increasing influence on his successors. For Ch. de Condren, man has the obligation of denying himself before the infinite greatness of God and rejecting everything that comes from nature. For J.-J. Olier, the "flesh," that is, everything human, deserves only disgust and rejection. Montfort insists (TD 79, 213, 228) that man can do nothing on his own. Man’s sanctification can therefore never be the result of human activity. The first step in the spiritual life will therefore be universal renunciation and mortification. This is how evil inclinations must be reduced, permitting God to work in man.


With the Oratorians, Montfort maintains man’s nothingness and always reaffirms that man is not capable of saving himself. The initiative can only come from God Alone. It is He Who is at work in the Incarnation. His Son becomes man to redeem man. In his representation of the history of salvation as the history of Eternal Wisdom’s love for man, Montfort leaves no doubt that man, even after the Fall, is the object of God’s love. Man of himself is incapable of good—and here Montfort is radical, perhaps in reaction to the independent tendency of human reason that was increasingly asserting itself, claiming to explain everything by its own strength and power. This attitude has consequences for the spiritual life (TD 83). Is this a loss of man’s dignity (his original nobility)? No. Man remains what he is by his creation at the hands of Wisdom: "An abridgment of Eternal Wisdom’s marvels, his small yet ever so great world, his living image and representative on earth" (LEW 64).

1. The dignity of man

This dignity is further increased and is perfected by an "excess of love," thanks to which man is now "a brother, a friend, a disciple, a pupil, the price of his own blood and co-heir of his kingdom" (LEW 64). According to Montfort, human dignity does not originate in man himself. Man ultimately only possesses this dignity because, and as far as, Eternal Wisdom enters into relation with him. Everything else depends on this relationship; so it is immensely important that man should be open to this relationship and let himself be loved by Wisdom. In this, Montfort rises above all moralism and casuistry; in this, too, he justifies his ascetic effort to establish this relationship of love and to maintain it (LEW 7). His ways of expressing his "universal mortification" (LEW 194-202) may well be characteristic of his time, and the unusually severe penitential exercises that he imposed upon himself might well alarm us, even though Montfort is not unique in this respect. The important point remains, however, that the relationship to Wisdom is not given gratuitously; it costs man something, and so man proves his sincere will and his "ardent desire." Moreover, the words of St. Paul, to the effect that man, in a world of sin, must always be armed for the spiritual struggle (Eph 6:10-20), remain valuable. For Montfort, the decisive weapon of the Christian in this fight is the Cross received with love (LEW 173).

2. The paradox of man

According to Montfort, man after the Fall appears to be a living paradox. Man does not lose his original essence; sin does not destroy the fact that God said of his creation and also of man, "It was very good" (Gen 1:31). In another context, Montfort emphasizes the fact that God is unchanging (TD 15, 22). But sin, the harm it brings, and the concupiscence that Baptism does not eradicate stresses that Man, although sharing in God’s life, is different from God. Man cannot resolve through his own strength this irreconcilable contradiction that he carries within himself. Ultimately, he can only wait passively and hope that God, instead, might solve it by making a gift of His creative love in spite of man’s resistance.6

It is in the Gospel alone that Montfort sees the possibility of resolving man’s inner contradiction. This possibility lies in the encounter with Christ, but this encounter must become a permanent alliance. Montfort says that the aim of all devotion is Jesus Christ (TD 61). Everything depends on knowing Jesus Christ, a knowledge that Montfort sees as a deepened experience of Jesus Christ, which can be called truly mystic (LEW 11).

Man turned in on himself, whom Luther calls "homo incurvatus," i.e. man in a state of sin and without Jesus Christ, is the creature most worthy of pity; but man united to Wisdom Eternal and Incarnate becomes a "man-God" (SM 17; 3; TD 157), who by Christ, with him, and in him is capable of all things (TD 61; 56). In spite of sin, man united to Christ can re-attain what was originally given to him (PM 18). In Montfort’s writing, Mary seems to be the very model of humanity so conceived.

3. Radical dependence

In Montfort’s thought, union with Christ takes the form of slavery. By this concept, Montfort characterizes man’s dependence on his Creator and his relation to God, which man broke off through sin. The resulting separation is overcome if man accepts his dependence on God, and it is precisely by making himself the slave of Jesus Christ that he recovers his dignity and his freedom. This means that man imitates the conduct of Jesus Christ, who emptied himself and chose the humility of slavery so that all men might be freed from the slavery of sin. Man must in turn renounce his autonomy and recognize Christ as the only Lord.

Montfort goes one step further. Jesus makes himself a slave in order to assume in every last respect the life of man enslaved by sin (Phil 2:1-7). Sighs and entreaties, sweat and tears, fatigued arms, sadness of heart, and affliction of the soul: this is the destiny of man in the misery of sin (LEW 41). Clearly, Montfort is thinking of the living conditions of the poor of his time. He recognizes the true condition of man in general in the misery and the material and spiritual privation of men. If he decides to live in the same conditions himself, it is not only from love of poverty but to share, like Christ, as completely as possible the wretchedness of man the sinner. In doing so, he overcomes the contrast between rich and poor, which is what people generally see. For in reality, the rich and the poor live in the same state of wretchedness. Doubtless, material well-being can clothe and hide this wretchedness, but it cannot remove it. The experience of the rich Western nations clearly shows this today. They produce new forms of wretchedness, the wretchedness of anguish that is often unconscious and very complex and that is caused by the fact that man is no longer self- assured and no longer knows exactly who he is. It is necessary, however, to know who we are if life is not to become absurd. And man only reaches this knowledge, according to Montfort, through his encounter with Eternal Wisdom, Jesus Christ. It is only in his union with Christ that man discovers the truth of what he is. What must be done first of all, and constantly thereafter, is to listen to those words of God which form the fundamental traits of the picture of man according to the Bible (LEW 30).

4. Indigence

Man’s powerlessness to obtain salvation through his own strength and his inability to reach the goal of Jesus Christ, Eternal Wisdom, justify for Montfort the necessity of a mediator with the Mediator himself (TD 83). It is an obligation, a necessity for man to use the help God offers him (TD 84). Of all these means of help, Mary has precedence, because she is Mother of Grace, "royal throne of Eternal Wisdom" (TD 27-44; LEW 208). But above all, it is she who produced the Head of the Mystical Body and who also produces its members (SM 12). The connection between Christ, Mary, and the Christian is based, according to Montfort, in the mystery of the Mystical Body of Christ. The consequence that he draws is that the Christian is the slave of Jesus Christ and, by analogy, he is also the slave of Mary (TD 70). This means that man essentially depends on Jesus Christ not only as his Creator but also as his Redeemer. This dependence is part of the definition of man according to Montfort.

5. Self-realization

In God’s plan of salvation, the Redeemer comes to man through Mary, and Mary, by her fiat, shares in the Incarnation and at the same time in the Redemption. Thus man depends on Mary, on her fiat. This is a dependence of another type (TD 74) but no less wide in scope. In God’s order of salvation, Jesus is de facto and always the Master of life, and Mary is de facto and always Mother and Mistress of life, whether man grasps it or not. But then, man only finds and realizes himself by accepting this dependence, which is always there from the start, and by living it out consciously. This is what happens in Montfort’s Consecration to Jesus Christ through Mary. This is where the baptized draw the only possible and reasonable conclusion, in view of the wretchedness of their sin, their inability to save themselves, and the order of salvation as it is given by God. By recognizing their complete dependence on Jesus and Mary, by placing all that they possess in their hands, the baptized make themselves consciously dependent, radically so from every point of view; but it is precisely in this way that they attain true freedom, the freedom of the children of God (TD 169; 170; 215; SM 41). Consecration in the form of slavery as intimated by Montfort signifies the most perfect realization of human freedom, for it implies an explicit choice and a free—and thus loving—acceptance of the relation to Christ that is accomplished in Baptism.

6. Consecration

According to Montfort, this relation to Christ, properly conceived, implies a relation to Mary, a relation brought about by the order of salvation as it is given to us. Montfort characterizes this relation by saying that everything must be done "through Mary, with Mary, in Mary and for Mary" (TD 257; SM 46-49). This is perfect Consecration. This unreserved giving to Mary implies letting oneself be formed and led by her in all things (TD 219-221, 258-259; SM 16-18). The aim of such giving is to attain the full stature of Christ (LEW 214; TD 33). In other words, it must lead the Christian to spiritual maturity. It is a long path, a lifelong one in most cases. It can be described as a slow and continual transformation of Baptismal grace. It draws its life from the existential experience of the love of God, calling man to an unconditional response, to the irrevocable giving of himself. This is a path of self-surpassing, which continually grows at all levels of human consciousness and finds its highest expression in a love that forgets itself. This Consecration encompasses "our body with its senses and members," i.e. the self with its faculties; "our soul with its faculties," i.e. the self as the deepest place of human motivation; "our interior and spiritual possessions." These are not necessarily to be sacrificed but are used according to the criterion of love (TD 121). In this love which gives unreservedly, human life attains a sovereign authenticity in its conformity with Christ’s love.

Similarly, the unreserved and definitive gift of self corresponds to the way man’s personality is structured. One can also judge a man’s maturity according to how far he has learnt to give himself in this way.

Man can only become himself in the interpersonal relations that are realized through the giving and receiving of authentic love. An authentic relationship reaches its highest expression in mutual giving of one to another, in which both parties discover themselves as people in the reciprocal act of giving that unites them. The "I" becomes complete when it gives itself to a "you"; and the more successful this act of giving, the more self-aware man becomes. This giving of oneself through love is also the core of Christian love, both the love of God and love of one’s neighbor. This love must lead to giving oneself because its ideal model is Christ.7

7. The tension between the ideal and the real

In Montfort’s thinking, man is characterized by a deep internal tension between the ideal of the human being as God created him (LEW 35-38) and the reality of human life, which, in Montfort’s eyes, is so marked by the consequences of sin. This is a deep and permanent human experience: it can be detected in the tension inherent in every human life, which is torn between the infinite aspirations, desires, and thinking of man and the finite nature and the limitations of the human condition—both experienced simultaneously. How will man manage this tension, which is not easy to bear? This is the crux of the matter. The answer lies in his life having a meaning and being a success.8 Man’s own inclination to avoid as far as possible all injury to his sense of self-worth does not make the task any easier. This is where we can detect those subtle forms of selfishness of which Montfort is speaking when he remarks that even the most disinterested and noble conduct is tainted with self-love (TD 78). Montfort turns forcefully against the temptation, ever present and so strong, to do away with the tension between the ideal and real life, between desire and moderation. How do people attempt to do this? Simply by making man alone responsible for his safety and well-being. This is the ultimate temptation, which urges man to make himself the center of the universe and claim to be omnipotent, at least to a certain point. To have all that one wants, to possess all that one desires, to receive instant satisfaction of every wish, to seek continually to assert one’s own superiority: this is what Montfort calls the wisdom of the world (LEW 75-82), which he rejects categorically. For flight from the fundamental tension of human life into the illusion of human omnipotence results in man becoming a slave to himself.

For Montfort, the reality of the Incarnation also opens up a path that permits us to work with this tension. In fact, the Incarnation implies that it is not any human urge towards transcendence that is at the beginning of things but a movement of condescension on the part of God, which long precedes man’s religious needs. This divine condescension signifies that in the person of His Son become flesh, God submits himself to human limitations down to their last detail (LEW 70; TD 17- 19; 243). The Cross becomes the highest point of this tension in the life of God made man. It is also the powerful call to the believer to make the decisive choice; this choice does not do away with the tension we have already mentioned but, instead, means accepting and bearing it. For the Cross and the Resurrection finally reveal that it is not man, but God Alone Who fulfills the infinite aspirations of the human heart and makes it overcome its own limits.

Montfort builds his spirituality on this image of man, which he bases on the fundamental claims of the Bible, making of man a being who receives, who is laden with gifts—in stark contrast to man as he is seen by those who do not believe. This does not mean that he reduces man to a so-called mystic level, as if man could simply sit back and do nothing. But it remains true (and perhaps this is one of the sources of difficulty that people experience with the person and thinking of Montfort) that for him, man’s existence is a reality defined by receiving: life is a pure gift of God. When man is no longer prepared to accept his role as recipient, when he no longer recognizes God as the eternal beginning and the goal of his life and prefers to live according to his own means, he falls into that frenzy of activity that began with original sin. Its destructive effects appear more and more worrying as the end of the twentieth century approaches, and in all aspects of life: in the way man organizes his own life, in the dissoluteness of social life, in the thoughtless pillaging of creation.

Whoever enters into Montfort’s spirituality feels he is being invited to change his idea of man, to renew it by taking Revelation into account. This takes him onto the difficult path that leads from the old to the new Man. In the tension between infinity and the finite, he discovers and lives out the possibilities of life that God offers to him.


The tension between the infinite and the finite, between the ideal and the reality of human existence, marked Montfort’s life deeply. The key trait of his character was his thirst for the absolute. This included his unshakable passion for God Alone, which already appeared in his earliest years and in which he strove to combine all his energies as he increased in age and maturity. The same aspiration to the absolute, which leaves no space for mediocrity, imbued his personality as it developed. The question has been raised whether this inclination was strengthened by mental conflicts, caused according to some by Montfort’s unsuccessful identification with his own father. Given the relatively small number of documents on which such an argument might be based, it is better to leave the question open.9 What is more decisive here is that Montfort’s inclination was strengthened, on the one hand, by his spiritual guides and his reading, which inculcated the ideal of Christian perfection and of pure love, and, on the other hand, by his discovery of the radical nature of the Gospel. Montfort was constrained to take the Gospel literally, with all the consequences this entails. This appeared quite clearly when he followed Jesus’ command literally: "Let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me" (Lk 9:23). Montfort lived out this renunciation so completely that he caused people to accuse him of despising himself. In this he was influenced by the generally accepted way of thinking of the time: human nature is spoiled; we must suppress all its manifestations. But what appeared to be contempt of self was, rather, that forgetfulness of self whose model is the kenosis of God made man. And it was to become increasingly so.

It is important to live out the ideal of poverty just as radically; for Montfort, poverty is not only renunciation of material goods but renunciation of support of any kind in this world. For him, this is the sign and the starting point of an unshakable trust in Divine Providence. The same aspiration towards the absolute marks his spiritual life. Prayer was to occupy every free moment of his time; penance and bodily mortifications were to exceed the normal by far, both in quantity and form. This passion for the absolute urged Montfort to advance always further. But it also became the place where he experienced his limitations, both internal and external. He had to recognize that this passion, if it was not wisely controlled by him and no one else, would lead him to the limit of his strength and even jeopardize his life. He was constrained to recognize that it made of him an eccentric, fitting into no recognizable mold, because he exceeded the bounds of what was held to be good behavior in his milieu, and that by the same token it necessarily provoked incomprehension, rejection, and opposition. His impulsive, ardent temperament, led him to commit actions that were not only admirably brave but sometimes ill thought out and exaggerated and thus led him to be thought of as eccentric. The difficulties and failures of his life were caused by this. Montfort was forced to admit that he harmed himself by his singular qualities.

The conversation that Montfort had with his friend Blain less than two years before his death helps us to understand his personality. It shows us that Montfort was aware of the problem and that he made considerable efforts to eliminate his quirks.10 Des Bastières, who worked with him for eight years, stated that Montfort managed to control his aggressive tendencies and use them constructively.11 On this point, his ever- stronger closeness to Christ helped him greatly; indeed, this closeness increased in moments of crisis. His vital aim, to become like Christ and reach the full stature of Christ, led him to discover the gentleness and goodness of Jesus (LEW, chap. 10 and 11; LS 32-35). He made them increasingly his own, and this earned him the title "good Father Montfort."

His closeness to Christ also permitted him to confront the danger of quietist passivity and to transform the passive obedience that he had been taught at Saint-Sulpice into active obedience. Obedience remained a particular virtue for him, in the sense that God Alone takes the initiative. But for Montfort that does not mean that we need do nothing. On the contrary, we must "listen to God with humble submission; act in him and through him with persevering fidelity . . . inspire others with that love for Wisdom which will lead them to eternal life" (LEW 30). It is in this sense of obedience that man can realize the essence of Christian action and its ideal of a life according to the Gospel and according to the example of the Apostles. Then he takes on the ambition to make his life conform to the "wisdom of the Apostles."12 Even if this means he will be accused of eccentricity. Here he expresses a high degree of self-confidence, as long as he is under the sovereign working of God; but this does not remove his suspicion of the malice of human nature and makes him hold firm to his rigorous penances and mortification of the body. But he can appeal to the example of numerous saints in this connection.

Humanity, as seen by Montfort, is characterized by a profound inner tension. Montfort neither sought to eliminate this tension, nor to accommodate himself to it (except when it threatened his life’s ideals) nor did he take refuge in some extremism which saw nothing good outside of itself. Retaining his passion for the absolute, he realized, often painfully, that he could not divorce himself from reality. He knew that he had to remain in touch with the concreteness of his life, especially of himself as a person. This did not result in a lazy compromise for him. Rather it permitted him to identify his own ideals in given situations. Thus he avoided making his personal need for the absolute a framework of reality for others. Thus he was able to perceive the value of differing spiritual choices and directions. He succeeded in reconciling his passion for the infinite with the limitations of inner and outer reality. His life was ever more imbued with this resolve: to expect everything from God and His Holy Mother.

H. J. Jünemann

Notes: (1) B. Lauret, Systematische Christologie, (Systematic Christology) in P. Eicher (ed.), Neue Summe Theologie, (Compendium of Theology) Herder, Freiburg 1988, 1:141. (2) Cf. Ch.-A. Bernard, Teologia spirituale, (Spiritual Theology) Ed. Paoline, Rome 1982, 260-261. (3) Cf. S. De Fiores, Itinerario, 34-58. (4) Ibid., 176-183. (5) Ibid., 101- 106. (6) O. H. Pesch, Mensch/Menschwerdung, (Man/Mankind) in Praktisches Lexikon der Spiritualität, (Practical Dictionary of Spirituality) Herder, Freiburg 1988, 871. (7) Cf. S. De Fiores, Prospettive teologiche circa la consazcrazione a Maria, (Theological Perspectives Concerning the Consecration to Mary) in S. De Fiores, S. Epis, and G. Amorth, La consacrazione dell’Italia a Maria, (The Consecration of Italy to Mary) Ed. Paoline, Rome 1983, 46-49. (8) Cf. B. Kiely, Psycologie and Moral Theologie, (Psychology and Moral Theology) Gregorian University Press, Rome 1980, 170-211. (9) R. Lagueux, Approches psychologiques de la dévotion mariale chez Grignion de Montfort (Psychological Approaches to Marian Devotion in Grignion de Montfort), in CM 52 (1966), 103-112; L. Perouas, Grignion de Montfort, les pauvres et les missions (Grignion de Montfort, the Poor and Missions), Cerf, Paris 1966, 33-46; Ce que croyait Grignion de Montfort et comment il a vécu sa foi, Mame, Tours 1973, 18, 30, 167; (L. Perouas, A Way to Wisdom) S. De Fiores, Itinerario, 31, 65, 74-77, 123, 226, 266-267; R. Laurentin, Dieu seul est ma tendresse (God Alone is my Tenderness), O. E. I. L., Paris 1984, 78, 117-118. (10) Blain, 184-189. (11) Grandet, 374. - (12) Blain, 188- 189.

Taken from: Jesus Living in Mary: Handbook of the Spirituality of St. Louis de Montfort (Litchfield, CT: Montfort Publications, 1994).

Provided courtesy of the Montfort Fathers © All Rights Reserved.

Electronic Copyright © 1998 EWTN All Rights Reserved

Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210